An Examination of Differences between Editions

[FireLance]

Regarding: "Search behind the painting" vs "I take 20 and Search the room".

Sometimes, I think one of the major determinants of how smoothly a game is run is how well the players interface with the game. In more open-ended systems, like previous editions of D&D, the DM has more responsibility to be that interface and to adjudicate the players' interactions with the game world. If the DM is flexible, creative, and able to adapt the challenges on the fly to create hints or add new complications, as necessary, the players will be challenged, but will not feel frustrated. However, if the DM has only one solution in mind, or is otherwise rigid and inflexible, the players might feel that they are playing one of those text-based RPGs where you have to type in exactly the right commands, e.g. "Move painting" instead of "Search painting", "Use knife" instead of "Cut rope", etc.

More codified systems like 3e solve this problem by defining more clearly what the PCs are capable of doing. Effectively, they allow the players to interface with the game in a command-driven or menu-driven manner. By narrowing the universe of choices down to a limited number of ways in which the players can interact with the game, and implying that the solutions to problems should be defined in terms of these limited interactions, at least one source of frustration (the game interface/DM not recognizing the player's input as valid) should be eliminated.

The irony is that one of the main advantages that a table-top pen-and-paper RPG has over a computer RPG is the flexibility of the DM to accept all kinds of input. However, if I'm playing with a DM that insists on acting like a computer, I'd rather have a command-driven interface than have to guess exactly what input he will recognize as valid.

 

[RFisher]

IIRC, my very first post at EnWorld was (among other things) a discussion of why it was just best to avoid having truly empty rooms in a dungeon in order to avoid this problem.

I've read things, however, that asserted that a certain percentage of empty rooms is a vital to good dungeon design. I can't say that I recall a reason for this, though.

Relatedly: Only describing people, places and/or things in detail when they are important is a big failing of mine. My players are like, "Huh, he spent 2 minutes describing the statue. let's check it out!"

I'm not convinced this is a bad thing.

However, if the DM has only one solution in mind, or is otherwise rigid and inflexible, the players might feel that they are playing one of those text-based RPGs where you have to type in exactly the right commands, e.g. "Move painting" instead of "Search painting", "Use knife" instead of "Cut rope", etc.

More codified systems like 3e solve this problem by defining more clearly what the PCs are capable of doing. Effectively, they allow the players to interface with the game in a command-driven or menu-driven manner.

After some thought, I'm liking this analogy.

The irony is that one of the main advantages that a table-top pen-and-paper RPG has over a computer RPG is the flexibility of the DM to accept all kinds of input. However, if I'm playing with a DM that insists on acting like a computer, I'd rather have a command-driven interface than have to guess exactly what input he will recognize as valid.

What the IF world calls "guess the verb".

Right. The appeal of RPGs to me is, I believe, very similar to what I enjoy about computer text adventures or Choose Your Own Adventure books. The big difference being the DM being a person instead of a computer or a book. RPGs are, for me, the perfect text adventure.

So, when I am DM, I must be open to the players' looking for unexpected solutions. Heck, I often set up situations in which I don't even have any idea of how the players "should" handle it. I want to see what they'll come up with. (Which later frustrates some players when they ask me what they "should" have done.)

This is why I can enjoy freeform role-playing. It doesn't bother me if there are basically no rules that govern whether my actions succeed or fail. Just as long as anything I feel my PC could do isn't blocked & the results don't fall too far from why expectations.

In fact, probably the times that the results have fallen farthest from my expectation have been when my PC's success was primarily governed by rules. Likewise, I don't like it when DMs refuse to allow my PC to do something I think is reasonable with no explaination beyond saying the rules don't allow it.

Getting back to edition & play style. If you try to play earlier editions of (A)D&D in a "menu driven" style, you'll probably end up with many of the complaints about those games that we've heard over the years & still hear today.

(I actually think a fairly strict implementation of the classic D&D rules in a computer game could still be a very fun game. When I started seriously considering trying the old games again, I was often surprised by how many things were there that I'd either missed before or forgotten. But I don't want to play it that way at the table.)

The thing is, 3e can be played in the "perfect text adventure" style. Yet, somehow, I find it...I don't know...easier? with older editions.

* * *

Let me attempt a different tack on this topic: What impact does the difference in the Invisiblity spell between editions make, if any?

 

[Celebrim]

Regarding: "Search behind the painting" vs "I take 20 and Search the room"...the players might feel that they are playing one of those text-based RPGs where you have to type in exactly the right commands, e.g. "Move painting" instead of "Search painting", "Use knife" instead of "Cut rope", etc.

I feel that in your rush to create a straw man out of what I wrote, that you've totally missed the point. I'm not looking for a particular verb. The great advantage of playing with a DM is that I can judge the players intentions. "Search painting" works just as well as "Move painting" or "Look behind painting" or any other thing that says the player's intention is to investigate in and around the painting.

But that isn't the point. The point is that, "Move painting" still works just as well as "I take 20 and search the whole room." and the two things are not in fact equivalent in anything but thier outcome with respect to looking behind the painting. One is explicit and the other is implicit. One is a one round action motivated probably by the player's knowledge that under certain story conventions, things are hidden behind paintings, or by prioritizing those things in the room's desciption which are interesting, while the other might take a half-hour or more and is almost algorithmic in its approach to the problem. If the straw man characterization of the DM that perfers a more 'Move painting' approach is that the DM is acting like a computer, then the straw man characterization of the 'Take 20 and search room' approach is that the player is acting like a computer - the interface has been reduced in complexity down to a level you could program for. If that approach works, a decent expert system ought to substitute for a group of players just fine.

Sometimes, I think one of the major determinants of how smoothly a game is run is how well the players interface with the game. In more open-ended systems, like previous editions of D&D, the DM has more responsibility to be that interface and to adjudicate the players' interactions with the game world. If the DM is flexible, creative, and able to adapt the challenges on the fly to create hints or add new complications, as necessary, the players will be challenged, but will not feel frustrated. However, if the DM has only one solution in mind, or is otherwise rigid and inflexible...

This works both ways you know. I could just as easily say, "If the players are flexible, creative, and able to adapt to the challenges on the fly, as necessary, as they are presented with next hints or added complications, then the DM will not feel frustrated. However, if the players have only one solution in mind, or are otherwise rigid and inflexible..."

More codified systems like 3e solve this problem by defining more clearly what the PCs are capable of doing. Effectively, they allow the players to interface with the game in a command-driven or menu-driven manner. By narrowing the universe of choices down to a limited number of ways in which the players can interact with the game...

I believe that that is my point exactly. As a player I get frustrated with command-driven or menu-driven RPG's because of thier inherit limitations. You can imagine how much more frustrated I get with players demanding that I be a command-driven or menu-driven interface.

The irony is that one of the main advantages that a table-top pen-and-paper RPG has over a computer RPG is the flexibility of the DM to accept all kinds of input.

Indeed.

I suggest you look over what I said again. And consider again just how many problems there are between 'take 20 and search' and 'move painting'. Imagine for example a highly cluttered room (say an attic or a storage room), in which something is hidden in a concealed panel. Does 'take 20' mean that the players examined everything closely and methodically, a process which might fail if noone has more than say 5 or 10 ranks in search. Or does 'take 20' mean, "We take the time and effort remove everything from the room and strip the wallpaper from the walls..." I would say the former. Players will - if they think it matters - tend to argue post facto for the latter, right up until what they find is a symbol of death, in which case they argue post facto for the former.

 

[Reynard]

Players will - if they think it matters - tend to argue post facto for the latter, right up until what they find is a symbol of death, in which case they argue post facto for the former.

QFT. I still remember the time a player said "I put the helmet on" and when I said "Poof, you're Chaotic Evil!" the player responded, quite seriously, "I didn't say I was putting it on my head."

 

[FireLance]

I feel that in your rush to create a straw man out of what I wrote, that you've totally missed the point.

Actually, I wasn't responding directly to what you wrote, although it did spark off the train of thought that resulted in my post.

In my post, I outlined one problem faced by players: an interface which theoretically accepts an unlimited variety of inputs, but which only recognizes a small subset of them as valid, and noted that a menu-driven or command-driven interface could help solve that problem, but that it was not an ideal solution.

The problems you identified in your post are different, and have more to do specifying what is meant by a specific "menu choice" or "command", and with trying to encourage players to step out of their menu-driven or command-driven mindsets. I think the solution to this is for the DM to accept both what you refer to as low-detail and high-detail propositions, and for successful low-detail propositions to point towards high-detail propositions.

For example, you could set your games up so that a Search check is simply a visual inspection. However, a successful Search check will uncover additional clues or hint at a course of action that the PCs could take to discover more.

Using the painting example, on a DC 20 Search check (a low-detail proposition), you could tell the PCs that there seems to be something behind it, or that it is slightly tilted, or that there are scuff marks on the wall that indicate that it had been moved repeatedly. The PCs are thus at liberty to manipulate it further (possibly setting off a trap or hazard), check it for traps (another Search check), or leave it alone. However, if a PC specifically stated that he was moving the painting (a high-detail proposition), he would find the hidden object (or set off the trap) automatically.

Similarly, for the example of the cluttered room, or the trapdoor hidden behind straw, a PC with a high Search check should realize that there might be some things that are still hidden because the straw or the clutter is in the way.

As a player I get frustrated with command-driven or menu-driven RPG's because of thier inherit limitations. You can imagine how much more frustrated I get with players demanding that I be a command-driven or menu-driven interface.

I doubt that there are many players who will demand that their DMs be entirely command-driven or menu-driven, but I think that the majority players expect to derive some benefit from the basic menu options or commands that are available to them, even if it is just a couple of clues and hints to the high-detail propositions that the DM wants. If I remember correctly, Ultima III had just such an approach. It had a special "Other Command" option that allowed the player to key in any word (much like those text-based RPGs), but the player could discover the words that actually worked through the established commands, e.g. by "Look"ing at a book or sign or notice, or by "Talk"ing to an NPC.

 

[FireLance]

QFT. I still remember the time a player said "I put the helmet on" and when I said "Poof, you're Chaotic Evil!" the player responded, quite seriously, "I didn't say I was putting it on my head."

A player like that is just asking for the "Who Wants To Be A Millionaire?" treatment for every action that he takes. "Is that your final answer?"

 

[Hussar]

I can see both sides of what Celebrim and Firelance are discussing. And, really, I think it boils again down to the loss of DM power. 3e does take power from the DM, IMO. I think most of us agree with that. A DM in 1e or 2e had far more authority over many actions than a 3e DM.

Take our painting issue again from that perspective. In the absence of a "command" in the form of a search check, the players must perform tasks based on what the DM feels is adequate. A player might say, "I look behind the painting" and the DM might interpret that as "I move the painting" thus setting off the trap.

Arguments around the table are made of this.

Because the DM is interpreting any action that lies outside the codified rules, that interpretation can lead to some issues. Honestly, I think the best course lies somewhere between the two extremes. The players should have certain "key words" that they can use to manipulate the environment without worrying about miscommunication. OTOH, it becomes far too formulaic if you cannot move outside of that list of keywords.

D&D has always had key words. "I attack" "I search for traps" "I search for secret doors" "I listen at the door" "I cast detect magic". 2e expanded the list somewhat with non-weapon proficiencies. 3e has expanded the list again with skills (and possibly feats).

But, I don't think any edition has closed off the ability to move beyond the list.

 

[Plane Sailing]

How does levelling affect the overall gameplay experience? In B/X, levelling was something that happened, with time and effort and dedication and luck, and was secondary to the game itself. there was a lofty goal -- level 36 -- that wasn't appreciably better than level 18 or 9, even, but it was there nonetheless. Acquiring levels mattered less, and the game mattered more. Moreover, things that happened outside levelling -- dominions and strongholds and war and calamity -- were bigger and better than levels. The game was geared toward the "farm boy to (often quite literally) god" paradigm and that shaped not just the adventures but the worlds in which those adventures were played.

< snip >

In 3e, to level is the drive. There is no system for building nations and armies. The planes, even, can be visited at any time almost, and certainly by 7th or 9th level. The push is for the next carrot, and if the class your in doesn't provide a carrot, you switch to another class or a PrC or a substitution level. Strangely, there's also an illusionary cap -- 20th level -- there, where the idea is that "everything changes" when that point is reached. I say illusionary, becaue nothing actually changes. Feats, skills, PrCs, class abilities all remain essentially the same once you hit "Epic", but by caling it "Epic" the designer have created an artificial barrier. there's no functional difference between a 19th and a 21st level character, but because there is a label there, suddenly the worlds must choose -- is this an Epic world, or not. Games and campaigns assume they must make the same choice.

All in all, the changes to levelling -- how it is done and what it means -- have done much to make each edition of Dungeons and Dragons into its own game, each with its own strengths and preferred play styles.

QFT. For me, this change in design philosophy has made the greatest change in play style (implied and actual). I think my only real disappointment with 3e was that "dominions and strongholds and war and calamity -- were bigger and better than levels" basically disappeared off the radar, and this in turn reduced 'story involvement'.

The other thing that I found reduced campaign development was the speed of levelling in later editions. In early editions (with slow levelling), campaign arcs could develop slowly in a way which proved much more difficult to manage when PCs were gaining a level every 13 encounters or so! I'm not saying good or bad here, it is just my observation that campaign arcs have to be paced very differently.

Cheers

 

[Reynard]

The other thing that I found reduced campaign development was the speed of levelling in later editions. In early editions (with slow levelling), campaign arcs could develop slowly in a way which proved much more difficult to manage when PCs were gaining a level every 13 encounters or so! I'm not saying good or bad here, it is just my observation that campaign arcs have to be paced very differently.

Cheers

There's a practical problem with fast levelling, as well. For casters and those with varied abilities, fast levelling can often mean the player never really has a chance to master the resources at his/her disposal, because there's always new resources to try and juggle. If you level every session or adventure, it is hard to develope key uses of abilities and spells in variable situations.

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

There's a practical problem with fast levelling, as well. For casters and those with varied abilities, fast levelling can often mean the player never really has a chance to master the resources at his/her disposal, because there's always new resources to try and juggle. If you level every session or adventure, it is hard to develope key uses of abilities and spells in variable situations.

I will have to agree with you there. When levelling in 3e, I base many of my decisions about feats, PrCs and skill choices on what the character did recently and how it shapes the character's needs and desires. When PCs level as quickly as they often do, there is not much to base those decisions on.

While I felt older editions leveled agonizingly slow at times, the "official" pace of 3e I think is too quick, but there has become an expectation of it, to which I have succumbed at times.